I think the quote is highly misleading. Earlier on the article it says:
"..exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings..
We should note the use of the words "restricted" and "memos". Restricted implies that there is a general sense of privacy behind these documents. "Memos" is important because it implies that it IS personal property.. the property of the person who wrote the memo.
The question of password protection isn't contended. What's contended is whether or not this is private property or government property. THAT's what the judicial nominee's statement hinges on, and that's where I think he is wrong.
Think of it this way: let's say you put a webserver up but didn't install all the patches.. let's say you didnt' install the latest patch (which came out yesterday) thus allowing your drive to be open to everyone. If someone steals your files, is that breaking the law? YES!
Let's say you claim that the difference is that it's private property. Well what about whitehouse.gov? Is that private property? By Miranda's logic these are government documents and taking (stealing) of the data here w/o illegal means should be legal. No f*cking way.
This was straight up illegal whether or not someone was incompetent.
I enjoyed reading your response and I definitely think you're on to something. However, I guess I was speaking more on the fundamental level of man. I understand how the markets work and how regulation works, but the basic question is "Why do humans need to be prevented from exploiting the system in the first place?"
You kind of answered that when you said, "People are not innately wolves, they're just good learners and perceptive of a payoff system that -- without public-minded balancing -- rewards taking advantage of the weak." Reading this, I can't help but find myself thinking about the Chicken-and-the-Egg paradox. The responding question to this is why, even if there is a payoff system, do people take advantage of the weak? Don't people have morals? Didn't people grow up with parents that read them stories like Little Red Riding Hood, etc?
Maybe it's because I grew up in the church, but I can't really see how people come to the point where they love money more than they do their fellow man (from a theoretical point of a view).
When morality makes money, it'll get really really popular.
And, therein, lies the paradox! (which maybe you intended) The popularity of money is inherently based on greed (which is "evil").
Yes, I guess that does quite simply answer the question but the difference is that I don't man is inherently evil. Quite the contrary; I think man is inherently good. My ventured guess is that they end up growing up in a society surrounded by greed, envy, pride, lust, sloth and the other of the 7 evils and then, after a while, it just becomes second nature to survival.:\
hahahhaha.. i took a look at the link and it makes sense.
The problem is that altavista seems to be doing a literal translation (taking each word and translating it). The problem is that the grammaticaly form of korean is different than that of english (and similar to Japanese, and I think Chinese and Hungarian).
The difference between this grammar (I don't kwow the official linguistic name for it) and english grammer is noun and verb placement. For instance:
I had this thought yesterday (which is relevant to this thread). I wondered how it was that employers could create such shitty job environments, how those who work in corporate America make it a habit to use and abuse people under them, how people can come to a point where they no longer treat other people like respectable humans. Did these people not grow up with any parents? Or did their parents never read them stories that have nice cute animals with morals?
I mean, seriously, I don't understand how half the people who seem to have this fucked up notion of how to treat people are created. Is it repetitive evil encountered in working environments? An "either it's you or me" mentality?
This article reminds of those little devices where they have mice and 2 buttons and one button gives a sensation of pleasure while the other gives pain. And the experiment shows that the mice totally overloaded on pleasure until it died of exhaustion. Come on people!
I mean, I can't believe that guy says that he didnt' subscribe to any subscription but really missed the History Channel. Does he really have no ability of temperance? Has our society really become so gluttonous?
I watch TV and I have cable (and satellite) but I usually jsut watch the news and the occasional movie. I have a cell phone but I turn it off when I don't want to be disturbed. I use computers at work so I dont' use it at much when I go home. What's so hard about that?
Not to troll, but maybe technology has changed since '96-'97. It's entirely possible (and likely) that they've done more (and better?) research since then.
I wonder if you could provide an analagous sentiment to search, itself. i.e. before Google, we had Lycos, Yahoo and Excite. I'm sure if you posted a story about "yet another search engine" on Slashdot, you would've gotten a bunch of naysayers talking about how that's the last thing we need.
Now all the naysayers are saying that Google is destroying itself by adding email -- correction, by a RUMOR that they are adding email.
Just to be the devil's advocate here, but as intrusive as it is we should remember that it IS how some of these websites get paid for the services they offer.
The problem is that in almost any industry that is constantly changing, you have to be ready to make additions, deletions or shifts in business in order to survive. Sometimes staying in one spot can lead to your death (i.e. in the 80/90s it was companies like DEC).
While I do think Google would be wise to improving to what they do best, the truth is that there are other competitors quickly catching up to search. The prudent business move would be to use their leverage in search and branch out (but avoid from spreading themselves too thin).
That's right. Bush bypassed Congress to install a federal appeal court judge (5th circuit). Doesn't that at least make you question the other circuit courts?
Slashdot Mirror
You think?
Maybe you're right, but what about Nixon? I don't know all the details about Watergate but this reeks of a close similarity (but much lesser degree).
I think the quote is highly misleading. Earlier on the article it says:
..
"..exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted Democratic communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings
We should note the use of the words "restricted" and "memos". Restricted implies that there is a general sense of privacy behind these documents. "Memos" is important because it implies that it IS personal property.. the property of the person who wrote the memo.
The question of password protection isn't contended. What's contended is whether or not this is private property or government property. THAT's what the judicial nominee's statement hinges on, and that's where I think he is wrong.
Think of it this way: let's say you put a webserver up but didn't install all the patches.. let's say you didnt' install the latest patch (which came out yesterday) thus allowing your drive to be open to everyone. If someone steals your files, is that breaking the law? YES!
Let's say you claim that the difference is that it's private property. Well what about whitehouse.gov? Is that private property? By Miranda's logic these are government documents and taking (stealing) of the data here w/o illegal means should be legal. No f*cking way.
This was straight up illegal whether or not someone was incompetent.
This would be useful in business after shaking hands around in a meeting with the cold souls for corporate America.
"Perhaps a software fault ...
;P
Umm, no, I'm quite sure it's a hardware problem.
I enjoyed reading your response and I definitely think you're on to something. However, I guess I was speaking more on the fundamental level of man. I understand how the markets work and how regulation works, but the basic question is "Why do humans need to be prevented from exploiting the system in the first place?"
You kind of answered that when you said, "People are not innately wolves, they're just good learners and perceptive of a payoff system that -- without public-minded balancing -- rewards taking advantage of the weak." Reading this, I can't help but find myself thinking about the Chicken-and-the-Egg paradox. The responding question to this is why, even if there is a payoff system, do people take advantage of the weak? Don't people have morals? Didn't people grow up with parents that read them stories like Little Red Riding Hood, etc?
Maybe it's because I grew up in the church, but I can't really see how people come to the point where they love money more than they do their fellow man (from a theoretical point of a view).
When morality makes money, it'll get really really popular.
And, therein, lies the paradox! (which maybe you intended) The popularity of money is inherently based on greed (which is "evil").
First of all, thanks for your response.
:\
Yes, I guess that does quite simply answer the question but the difference is that I don't man is inherently evil. Quite the contrary; I think man is inherently good. My ventured guess is that they end up growing up in a society surrounded by greed, envy, pride, lust, sloth and the other of the 7 evils and then, after a while, it just becomes second nature to survival.
Ooh! That would be just as useful as a one-handed mouse!!
Oh wait....
yes, correct. I guess I through the "I" in there even though it's really implied (like the other replyer said).
ah.. thanks for the clarification.
*barf*
:) It'd make for the perfect coffee table book.
Please tell me you got pictures. If so, you could write a book on this stuff.
So what do you do now? I seriously hope you 1) got paid well doing that job and 2) have moved on.
hahahhaha.. i took a look at the link and it makes sense.
The problem is that altavista seems to be doing a literal translation (taking each word and translating it). The problem is that the grammaticaly form of korean is different than that of english (and similar to Japanese, and I think Chinese and Hungarian).
The difference between this grammar (I don't kwow the official linguistic name for it) and english grammer is noun and verb placement. For instance:
In English, one would say: "I'm going home".
In Korean, one would say: "To home I go."
Why radio?
I listen to my local NPR station, that's why.
"Man is a wolf to man."
I had this thought yesterday (which is relevant to this thread). I wondered how it was that employers could create such shitty job environments, how those who work in corporate America make it a habit to use and abuse people under them, how people can come to a point where they no longer treat other people like respectable humans. Did these people not grow up with any parents? Or did their parents never read them stories that have nice cute animals with morals?
I mean, seriously, I don't understand how half the people who seem to have this fucked up notion of how to treat people are created. Is it repetitive evil encountered in working environments? An "either it's you or me" mentality?
Someone, please explain. Was Hobbes right?
Damn.
Think of it this way. You could either be one of the things you mentioned or:
You get the idea. Anyway, Homo Homini Lupus ("Man is a wolf to man."), even in America.
With the internet as a close second?? (for the same reasons)
Just keep it on vibrate. That's what I do so that it won't annoy other people at work. What's so difficult about that?
My sentiments exactly but instead of asking:
Are people really this stupid?
I wanted to ask:
Are people animals?
This article reminds of those little devices where they have mice and 2 buttons and one button gives a sensation of pleasure while the other gives pain. And the experiment shows that the mice totally overloaded on pleasure until it died of exhaustion. Come on people!
I mean, I can't believe that guy says that he didnt' subscribe to any subscription but really missed the History Channel. Does he really have no ability of temperance? Has our society really become so gluttonous?
I watch TV and I have cable (and satellite) but I usually jsut watch the news and the occasional movie. I have a cell phone but I turn it off when I don't want to be disturbed. I use computers at work so I dont' use it at much when I go home. What's so hard about that?
If there's anything evilly addicitive it's pr0n.
Good point.
/. naysayers which seems to be the popular thing to be. :)
Yeah, I mean I'm pretty skeptical myself but I'm also wary of all the
Not to troll, but maybe technology has changed since '96-'97. It's entirely possible (and likely) that they've done more (and better?) research since then.
Interesting.
I wonder if you could provide an analagous sentiment to search, itself. i.e. before Google, we had Lycos, Yahoo and Excite. I'm sure if you posted a story about "yet another search engine" on Slashdot, you would've gotten a bunch of naysayers talking about how that's the last thing we need.
Now all the naysayers are saying that Google is destroying itself by adding email -- correction, by a RUMOR that they are adding email.
Come on people.
Just to be the devil's advocate here, but as intrusive as it is we should remember that it IS how some of these websites get paid for the services they offer.
You talk about Googlemail costs but what about profits?
I'm sure there would be advertising on Googlemail too and that it would be at least AS popular as advertising on Google search.
The problem is that in almost any industry that is constantly changing, you have to be ready to make additions, deletions or shifts in business in order to survive. Sometimes staying in one spot can lead to your death (i.e. in the 80/90s it was companies like DEC).
While I do think Google would be wise to improving to what they do best, the truth is that there are other competitors quickly catching up to search. The prudent business move would be to use their leverage in search and branch out (but avoid from spreading themselves too thin).
An additional note from today's news:
Bypassing Congress, Bush Installs Judge on Federal Appeals Court
That's right. Bush bypassed Congress to install a federal appeal court judge (5th circuit). Doesn't that at least make you question the other circuit courts?